Home

Share this Story

$12 A Month For Facebook – Sprint Tramples Over Net Neutrality With New Prepaid Plan

sprint-logo

Today, Sprint dispensed with all subtlety. Without any pretense of net neutrality whatsoever, the carrier unveiled a plan with options to pay more for unfettered access to social media and streaming music, depending on the tier. 

The Virgin Mobile Custom plan, sold under Sprint’s Virgin Mobile brand, provides unlimited access to one of four social media services – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Pinterest – on top of your data plan for $12 a month. An additional $10 will net unlimited use of all four, while $5 more grants unlimited streaming from any one music app. The base plan also includes 20 minutes of talk time and 20 texts, both of which can be upgraded. Lines start at $6.98 a month, $5 extra for “unlimited” access. Plans can be adjusted on the fly, even daily if so desired.

The plan, President of Prepaid at Sprint Dow Draper told the Wall Street Journal, isn’t currently part of a promotion – none of the companies featured are subsidizing connection costs, unlike AT&T’s Sponsored Data program, but he said “it’s definitely possible” down the road.

The new plan embodies the anti-net neutrality schemes advocates have been warning about for years. Instead of allowing data to flow unimpeded, Virgin Mobile Custom very clearly discriminates against a huge number of apps, ultimately relegating them to more restrictive data plans. If Sprint’s goal, as Mr. Draper implies, is to provide the Internet at palatable prices for poorer consumers, perhaps lower-cost (the cheapest data package Virgin is offering starts at $8 a month) capped but open access with an option to pay for more might be more appropriate . Heck, T-Mobile does it free for tablets – why can’t Sprint do the same for prepaid phones?

These plans will be made available through Walmart beginning August 9. Supported handsets include the LG Unify, LG Pulse, and ZTE Emblem.

Via: SprintWall Street Journal
  • dhinged

    What if I don’t want social sites or streaming media on my phone? What if I want a 2nd phone for work or something where I’ll never use that stuff?

    This plan looks very inviting to somebody like that. Just a basic smartphone that doesn’t have these distracting things.

    Sure I can just choose not to use them, but why pay more when I can get a discount for not using something I wouldn’t use anyways on the phone?

  • kira

    it’s kinda nice not having a cell phone

  • Dirtbag359 .

    Seeing as how Virgin Mobile is involved it shouldn’t be much of a surprise.
    —————————————–
    The new CEO of Virgin Media is putting his cards on the table early, branding net neutrality “a load of bollocks” and claiming he’s already doing deals to deliver some people’s content faster than others. If you aren’t prepared to cough up the extra cash, he says he’ll put you in the Internet “bus lane”.

    In an interview with the Royal Television Society’s Television magazine, far from covering up their intentions, Virgin Media’s new incoming CEO Neil Berkett – who joined the Virgin Media Board just a few days ago – has launched an attack on the ideas and principles behind net neutrality.

    “This net neutrality thing is a load of bollocks,” he said, adding that Virgin is already in the process of doing deals to speed up the traffic of certain media providers.
    ——————————————-

  • HarvesterX

    Here’s a MAJOR one nobody seems to bring up. OK now that we are being offered certain sites for unlimited access why not add Google Play Store? With capped data plans any apps paid for or downloaded off Play Store sgouksbt count towards your cap. If that was how things were I wouldn’t be as hell bent on keeppibg my unlimited (but I’d still keep KT as long as I can of course)

  • Ionel Păpușoi

    If
    you don’t want a contract anymore with an mobile operator, you can find here
    the completest list of prepaid plan providers from all the US.
    http://www.allprepaidplans.com/ has a list of more than 50 providers besides
    the four big networks. For many people this was great help. Hope it would also
    help you!

  • fuzzylumpkins

    it’s funny, T-Mobile did it because their network was fully capable of handling the extra traffic. Sprint is doing it to squeeze what little juice is left from their horribly neglected network.

  • Kevin C.

    Oh Hai hot your back let’s roll

  • David Compart

    I’m pretty torn on this issue. Personally people should pay for what they use and that even includes businesses. Now what worries me is the possible anti-competition used by these providers. Nobody likes long run monopolies. Then again, unions have destroy and bankrupt public telecom so that’s a tough thing to bankroll.

  • Jeremiah R.

    Cancelled Sprint just now, going with US Cellular. To hell with you.

  • Frank Gimsdale

    So what. There is no such thing as net neutrality. They own their network and they should be able to charge what they want and their customers free to disconnect and go elsewhere. Now if their customers thing this is a great idea, then perhaps others will catch on. If it fails and VM is harmed financially, this will be the last you’ll see of it for a long time.

    • OzzyLovesBabyShampoo

      You have no idea wtf you are talking about. Of course there is such a thing as net neutrality. That’s why greedy pukes are trying to destroy it however possible.

  • Collective82

    I bet it’s a stunt to show the FCC what happens when the internet isn’t protected.

  • Rick

    This has nothing to do with net neutrality at all. They are providing you a service for money. This is how all internet services work. If they were charging Facebook/Twitter/Youtube/etc. to deliver their content to you, then you would be talking about net neutrality. A company can form whatever plans they want, as far as charging consumers for access. You are always welcome to choose not to use their services. The point is that companies themselves should not have to/be able to pay for increased priority on the consumer’s ISP’s network.

    • OzzyLovesBabyShampoo

      And Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest should sue them for not giving equal / fair treatment.

  • Mathiuz De Jesús

    I wonder if Kyle bothered to read the official press release on these plans which are only sold at Walmart, and is directed to families who want access, control, and monthly costs which will not break a budget.

    http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/virgin-mobile-usa-launches-virgin-mobile-custom-fully-customizable-cell-phone-plan-with-rich-parental-controls.htm

    Looks to me this report by Kyle and the guys at The Verge is nothing but a LAME DUCK attempt to put a black mark on a day where Sprint reported net income for the last quarter, as well as having lost far less customers than predicted by some loser in Wall Street.

    • OzzyLovesBabyShampoo

      You sure are a rabid “customer” of Sprint…. you lying sack of crap. http://i.imgur.com/ARmFRc9.png

      • Mathiuz De Jesús

        You look like a stalker, as someone who has been exposed for promoting competitors on Sprint’s social media.

        • OzzyLovesBabyShampoo

          No, I just happened to find this idiotic Facebook post RIGHT BEFORE I came here by Googling this crap after I saw the news on Reddit this morning. You are completely full of crap and pathetic. Try a little harder to pretend to be just a customer, scmuck.

          • Mathiuz De Jesús

            You brought it to the discussion, so you must be upset at me, probably because you were either banned or exposed as the troll you are, especially for not having a real profile picture on your profile…

            If I worked for Sprint’s social media, you would had been permanently banned from facebook via IP BAN. However, I do not have that luxury. Have you been sent here by any of the known bloggers/ediTROLLS in chief to try silencing me with antics like yours? You are failing as much as the one who wrote this article as it did not do the due diligence in reading the official press release from Sprint.

            Just because a customer is well aware of policy and provides FACTS over news which are as made up as a fairy tale does not mean it works for x or y company.

          • OzzyLovesBabyShampoo
          • Mathiuz De Jesús

            Funny thing no one else but you is complaining about bringing facts to the table. As a matter of fact, why don’t you reveal your real identity rather than hide with the “No More Tears” slogan from Johnson’s baby shampoo (which is a violation of usage of intelectual property owned by Johnson and Johnson)?

            Let me guess. You must be one of those things called internet trolls who got banned from all of Sprint’s social media and community forums for excessive trolling, spamming, harrassing, bullying, and stalking people who have exposed you for one or perhaps all the reasons mentioned above.

            What’s your real agenda against me?

          • OzzyLovesBabyShampoo
  • Matt Peterson

    Hi – I would like to strongly disagree with the author of this article. I am guessing that Kyle has a very basic understanding of Net Neutrality. If I pay for the full internet, I want the full internet because it’s what I’m paying for. If you only need facebook data, then only buy it. This isn’t a bad thing – it’s efficient. Virgin isn’t killing it’s data plans, it’s just making one plan for people who only talk, text, and use facebook on their smartphones. Data flow will be unimpeded, just focused for efficiency. They will also have data plans where you can reach the whole internet if you decide it’s worth it, and those plans are totally net-neutral.

    This article is fear-mongering, nothing more. I recommend those who read this article try to find a better understanding of the issue of Net Neutrality. This Virgin plan has nothing to do with the issue at hand and the article is making an issue where there is none.

    • OzzyLovesBabyShampoo

      You don’t understand how the world works.

  • allen

    This is a new style of SEGREGATION, most lower income individuals use Plans like this. Race and ethnicity type discrimination is gone, but in this new era it is all about CLASS and your money, and where you fit in on the scale, not black, white, pink, and green – but credit, income, what you spend.

  • JD

    Now I’m even MORE glad that I dropped Sprint.

  • Conor

    This is why I’ll be joining GiffGaff in the coming months. Great plans for sim free phones with unlimited texts and internet for only £12. That’s the kind of freedom cellular data needs, where choice of packages are available on the fly and you aren’t bound by a contract if you so wish!

  • Outpost

    Having looked up the plan; I can say either the author is flat our lying, or didn’t actually READ the site. This is downright fake.

  • Deuce Sevenoff

    How does this have anything to do with Net Neutrality? This appears to be about paying a flat rate for unlimited data for certain apps and web sites, exempting them from monthly data caps. Stop trying to see a conspiracy in everything.

    • Bobert

      you cannot be serious… or worst… are you?

    • asharpman

      You try starting a new social media platform when your competitors have the unbelievably unfair perk of unlimited access.

  • Gary

    In your dreams, Sprint.

  • Champion of Freedom

    ITS TIME TO GO TO WAR!!!

  • I don’t see that Sprint has a monopoly. So just don’t use their plan. If the basic plan sucks for the sites you do use, then don’t use them at all. The tiered access is only a problem in government created monopolies, like cable providers. You can make a case that companies enjoying a government enforced monopoly have to let government restrict their pricing plans. The danger in that, is that you could end up with only government monopolies. Can we just get government out of the internet?

    • asharpman

      It’s a huge detriment to competition and the equality of access to the internet. How do people not understand this? This sets a precedent for rich internet mega-companies to force out upcoming competitors from the market place.

      • Which companies and which competitors are you talking about? On a shared medium like the internet, the logical consequence is that access MUST (of mathematical necessity) be prioritized. The only question is what policy is used for that prioritization.

        One prioritization scheme is money. Should I not be able to pay extra to my ISP for a “premium plan” to hog extra bandwidth? Should my neighbor on the budget plan feel resentful when I’m downloading indie movies?

        On that last point, wide implementation of QoS is important. Internet packets can be tagged with the type of priority – the basics are low latency (what you want for VOIP, SSH, etc – the throughput is low but delays and dropped packets are nasty), high throughput (what you want when streaming video – the latency doesn’t matter), bulk (that big download can run in the background using bandwidth only when no one else is), and normal (for web browsing, etc). I would prefer an ISP that charges based on the QoS tags for packets I send. So when I download Fedora, my app sets “bulk”, and it doesn’t bother the neighbors and is really cheap.

        Perhaps I’m wrong, but you seem to be advocating one of two things (I’m not sure which):

        1) there be no prioritization at all by law, and all packets are queued first come first served, and all plans must be law be the same price for the same pipe size regardless of usage.

        2) government bureaucrats allocate bandwidth to subscribers based on political influence instead of money

        • asharpman

          I’m referring to websites. So imagine a small upstart company creating a new social media website to compete with twitter or instagram. Now imagine twitter and instagram having the money to make deals with internet providers such that their website gets unlimited high speed access, while the upcoming competitor gets lower speed and limited access. All of a sudden the cards are stacked against the competition unfairly.

          • Ronald Touchet

            This is America. You get the opportunity that you can afford, if you can’t, well then too bad for you. It saves the big name players from having to buy the competition when the landscape is unbalanced.

          • So Twitter uses 1000 times as much bandwidth as MyGossip, and pays 1000 times as much as MyGossip. I don’t see the problem here. Are you suggesting that the government subsidize MyGossip so that they don’t have to pay as much for more bandwidth as they grow? When would the subsidy stop? What is “unfair” about paying for the bandwidth needed for your business?

            Using the phrase “unlimited high speed access” show a complete lack of understanding of networking on your part. There is NO SUCH THING as “unlimited” internet access – no matter what the marketroid from your ISP says. The links all have a finite bandwidth, which is oversubscribed to keep costs down. You can actually buy a dedicated link – but it still has a finite bandwidth, and is still shared where it connects to the global internet. Companies like facebook and twitter *do* in fact purchase multiple dedicated links to internet trunks. Are you suggesting they should be forbidden to do that??

          • I think what you may be trying to describe is a Microsoft / Coke / Pepsi scenario. Microsoft sells its products at a steep discount to OEMs on condition that the OEM sell Microsoft products exclusively on all their products. Microsoft can get away with this because of their huge market share. Coke and Pepsi have a similar arrangement with restaurants – a Coke restaurant can only sell Coke products, if they want to get the soda cheaply. Same for Pepsi.

            You may be fearing a scenario where Facebook makes a deal with a large number of ISPs to pay lotsa $$$ provided they actively throttle all non-facebook traffic (or maybe all traffic not in the facebook consortium).

            This kind of scheme only succeeds with consumer ignorance. Most people keep buying Microsoft products. But there *is* a market in cheap used PCs for those of us with a little more knowledge (and can put Linux/BSD/Solaris/etc on them) – *and* a market in expensive Apple products for those with a little more dough. So while I am offended by the “Microsoft Tax”, and avoid paying it (by buying a new PC) as a point of honor, I am happy to spend $200 on my laptop instead of $2000.

            In the same way, while most consumers will remain blissfully ignorant that their “mainstream” ISP only provides efficient access to “facebook consortium” websites – those of us who are more knowledgeable will use smaller ISPs, like WISPs. Those with more money will buy “premium” service from ISPs that haven’t signed with Facebook so they can sell to the premium market.

            This is not ideal, but consumer education is the only real solution. Government deciding who can sell what to who based on politics would be even worse.

  • What is scary is that Sprint actually went through with something like this. Sure it’s an idea in a lot of CEO’s heads to do this but to put it in place is all kinds of evil scary.

  • Patrick Kennedy

    This isn’t a net neutrality issue. It’s just Sprint doing business.

    If Sprint were restricting access to those sites unless the customer paid to gain full access OR Sprint were threatening those sites with restrictions unless THEY paid for full access to the customer THEN and ONLY then would it be a net neutrality issue.

    Net neutrality comes into play when an ISP abuses their authority over the flow of data by creating artificial restrictions in order to profit.

    • asharpman

      Giving preferential treatment to specific websites. “Not about net neutrality.” Jesus christ.

  • Curtis Baker

    I believe Sprint is playing devil’s advocate here. What better way to support net neutrality than by placing its contrasting policies into the market now under its prepaid brand? People will outcry and lambaste the company on this move and all the anti-net-neutrality supporters. Then, in a very public coupe-d’etat, stop offering the plan for the benefit of it’s consumers. I think it’s genius…

    • Uhmmm that is the opposite of net neutrality, you clearly either work for Sprint or don’t understand what the words net neutrality mean.

      • Hacker

        You missed his point entirely. He said that it would be an ingenious idea for Sprint to accelerate the issue by making a plan like this available in order to get congress/FCC to step in and make a ruling on it. It is a great idea… But I don’t think Sprint is that smart. They want profit in my opinion.

        • I suppose you have a point, but I doubt it’s 3 dimensional chess here, just plain old fashioned monopolistic greed.

          • OzzyLovesBabyShampoo

            Haha, I love that phrase about 3 dimensional chess and I will be stealing it in the future.

  • lolexecs

    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40616.pdf

    “Mobile providers are prohibited from blocking consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management”

    This means that mobile broadband providers can (if they wish) throttle access to streaming services if they feel it will impact QoS for others.

  • A.J. Ramsey

    The Internet is a Public F****** Utility. #TheSecretLivesofEmails

  • Oxyco

    Feels like everytime someone’s in a relationship and they gotta leave it to realize what they had in the first place, well here the interested doesn’t even know they’re in a relationship. It’s gonna take a while…

  • Carlos Pandiella

    This,,,,,really? Why dont people wake up and see what their future “rights” are to the net.

  • sk3litor

    what needs to happen is an independent company needs to arise with the sole purpose of researching what these 4 companies are doing to inform the general public of what these kind of things mean. sort of like a checks and balances kind of thing. so when sprint does this kind of shyte there’s someone on the fore front to say “hey people if you buy into this, then this is what it means in the long run.” its unfortunate but most people dont research things. we the consumers need to start taking proactive rolls in keeping the net nuetral.this is a free market and cant expect govt agencies to step in and do the right thing. the net is the last free voice we have as americans and WE need to keep it that way.

  • monkeybutts

    I wish this would go to Cable TV instead of wireless service. Would love to pick and choose the 10 channels I use most even if it only saves me $10 a month

    • Joel Detrow

      Hell, some people would actually pay extra to not have to wade through 1000 channels to get to the 3 they want.

    • Razor

      Except under this plan, you’re still paying $150 a month for cable, and $10 extra so the picture quality doesn’t suck on HGTV.

  • Shawn John

    If Sprint was truly innovative they could install a chip in the phones that would have a constant connection to those social media services and NIX a data plan altogether. Now that would be something consumers would welcome who prefer to not pay for data, if their only using those services.

    • Ian

      How does a chip allow you to not use data?

  • Lou_C

    I genuinely don’t understand why this is a net neutrality violation. If I understand the plan correctly, you pay a low price for a low amount of voice, texts, and data. That data can be used on any web service. Then, you can choose pay *more* to get unlimited access to certain services.

    It sounds like Kyle got this backwards. The non-FB, etc. services aren’t “segregat[ed] to more expensive data plans,” they are on the *less* expensive plan. Instead, this plan would seem to allow users to choose — in addition to their base plan that gives access to all services — to receive unlimited access to certain sites of their choice at a higher price.

    So this plan gives users the ability to choose to get more by paying more, but at a bulk discount. It doesn’t make other services more expensive. Isn’t this the same as going to the grocery store and getting a discount for buying a bigger package of toilet paper?

    How is this a net neutrality violation? It seems pro-consumer to me. Am I dense?

    • krystal boren

      OMG!! Thats what I was trying to say this whole time! As a current Zact customer, that’s exactly what it is. Ok now I’m done

    • Ian

      I like your argument but I think the crux of the issue still lies with that you are paying for categories of data (social, music, etc.) opposed to paying for access and lettings the cards fall where they may.

    • Kyle Wiggers

      Edited the article earlier today but forgot to change that sentence to reflect. The problem is still discrimination against apps that aren’t a part of the “special offer.”

      • Deuce Sevenoff

        And where does it say they’ll be “discriminating” against those apps?

    • Josh Fischer

      Part of the issue is that if you are a smaller competitor to the large services in social or media, I don’t see an option for those users to get the same beneficial treatment. I rarely use facebook but am on Google+ quite a bit. I wouldn’t have the same option for unlimited that I can see for the service I choose to use. Now what happens when companies like Facebook or Youtube or any other large player in any industry pay to have exclusivity with a carrier for such plans. You begin hurting choice of customers and the ability for small/new players to grow.

      What I don’t get is that if you find a way to use facebook to stream your music and videos, then you can circumvent the lower data tier by paying for the unlimited Facebook. Why is 10GB of Facebook 1 price but 10GB of another service potentially different when not offered on one of these special pricing plans? That is why I believe there is a concern. At some point we are going to be nickel and dimed to death. $10 for facebook, $5 for instagram, $20 for Youtube, etc. Data should be considered data and treated the same whether it is streaming music, downloading rom files and games, watching video, or surfing the net. But that is just my opinion.

      • n00tch

        The thing is, even when you post a video from YouTube on Facebook you are still streaming it from YouTube. Facebook isn’t hosting it, they are just calling out to the original hosted file from YouTube, or one of it’s content delivery networks.

  • NYAvsFan

    Well there goes their customers.

  • I like how this is the opposite of T-Mobile with their unlimited music streaming (which sounds amazing to me if i happened to not have unlimited data. most of my 10gb+ a month come from streaming google music or pandora)

  • Shawn John

    Sprint is so out of touch with reality I wonder how they stay in business, when mesh networks become the norm in the future, nobody will be paying for internet access as we do now. Google and Facebook will launch WIFI access balloons and drones all over and there will be coverage on parts of the earth that animals don’t even reside. Go to hell Sprint, their trying to “milk the strip” before they can longer make revenue from that vertical. Are they lost? Just sell the business to T-Mobile.

  • surfer

    f*ck sprint and all the greedy companies trying to take of net neutrality, sprint is the worst so they should just not mess with the people

  • Stone Cold

    With??????????

  • krystal boren

    Ok….Every1 realizes that you can still surf the interwebs freely using your data plan, right? I am on Zact which runs ItsOn cloud based tech that give you an a-la-carte for voice,data,& text. Sprint signed a deal w/ itson and Virgin Mobile Custom is its baby. For 500mins,100txts,100mb/mth I pay $23-after tax. If you want unlimited access to these apps like FB, then you pay $5 and it doesnt use your data. HOWS THAT A BAD THING? I pay for what I want,get credit for what I dont use.

    • crussell

      It’s a bad thing when people start to pay for it. It’s a slippery slope. It’s like boiling a frog slowly. First you buy the FB access on top of your data plan because that’s 90% of your data usage. The carrier goes “oh hey, we see you’re not using much data”. FB access gets cheaper, general interwebs access goes up. Before you know it, you have all the a la cart you want but but failed to realize, you’re paying a ton more just to get to droid-life.com because they are not part of the a la cart. This is not the answer.

      • trixnkix637

        ^ this.. A thousand times over.

      • krystal boren

        Thats where wi-fi comes in. And its not like you’re locked in to anything. You can change your plan and if you don’t like those options, well its NO Contract so you just go somewhere else. This plan is just for a small group of people. Its a nice option for some thats all. No one said anything when this idea came out over a year ago. So why now? Zact used Sprint exclusively. Also I use my data plan to look at droid-life. it has nothing to do w/ paying more

        • crussell

          No, I’m sorry. If this takes off, ISP will see the extra money and convert. Soon you’ll have all the FB you want on your wifi but nothing else. This is business and which ever model increases the bottom line, will be adopted by by all others ie see shared data pools. It is a slow process as we don’t want to upset the apple cart all at once. Slowly put out those items “as an option”. Soon it will be the ONLY option. This is not to be an insult but you are the frog who is slowly being boiled.

        • krystal boren

          This is just like when Verizon done away w/ Unlimited Data-You can still look at anything on the web,you are just capped by your data plan.

          • crussell

            Thank you for reinforcing my point :/

          • krystal boren

            I am on a disability=fixed income and I only make $708/mth. I am the poor consumer. That’s what this was designed for. It fits my needs. I cant afford a $100/mth phone bill like most people. This gives me the option to choose how much I want to pay for data/mins/txts. The specialized plans are an added bonus. You can still use your data any way you want to. That’s all i was saying. Didn’t mean to ruffle anyones feathers. I was just being light-hearted. you guys are 2 serious for me.

          • crussell

            It’s not specifically you and it’s great it works for you. The reason people feel so strongly about this is we’ve seen what happens when the “option” is out there. It works great for some so big business says oh well people are buying into this, it must be what the want. It makes us more money so lets make everyone move to this. If it stayed as an option, I guarantee no one would have a problem with it. It’s being forced as the only option that “ruffles peoples’ feathers”. It’s a sad state our society is in these days with all these first world problems where no one sees the big picture and is why the poor (the middle class, being me) are getting poorer and big business and the 1%er run everything. Sorry I went a bit astray there….

          • krystal boren

            You are absolutely right. Thats what it boils down to-There are only a handful of people that rule the world. They only care about how to make themselves richer and fatter at all costs. They’re cut-throat and if you give them an inch,they’ll take a mile. I totally see where you are coming from. I agree.

    • Kyle Wiggers

      Edited the article to clarify. Still a net neutrality issue, although everyone seems to have their own definitions for the term.

      • Daistaar

        It absolutely is a Net Neutrality issue. The fact the any website could be singled out for additional fees from either party, content owner or subscriber is a very slippery slope. If someone on a Verizon ISP has to tolerate dial-up speeds on certain URLs, say http://www.t-mobile.com what’s to stop everyone from doing it? It’s very anti-competitive, a method of price gouging, nickel and diming, and anti-advancement as any startup with a good idea can easily be derailed by not being able to afford viable traffic speeds or face the cost of lower tier bandwidth. This affects us consumers as well. It all trickles down. Stand by your article Kyle. It’s a great one.

  • shooter50

    Sprint blows. Their people blow. Their service blows. Why anyone in their right mind would use Sprint is beyond comprehension. I mean, someone tell me please why you would choose Sprint over other carriers. Coverage-no.Speed-no.Customer service-no. So why? Educate me please.

    • PoisonApple31

      So your girlfriend is on Sprint?

      • Aaron C

        Haha… So your girlfriend i̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ works for Sprint? <- fixed it for you. Still, OP's comment is accurate. Why anyone would be on Sprint these days is beyond me. Even if you're left over from the Nextel days, seriously…

  • flosserelli

    Critics anxiously raise pitchforks to defend net neutrality. Yet the folks that sign up for these plans obviously couldn’t care less about net neutrality….

    • velocipedes

      Critics always think only of their own opinion, and disregard the opinions of everyone else.

      We still have a (mostly) free market. Nobody is being forced to purchase this plan. If customers sign up for this plan, it’s an entirely voluntary transaction. And nobody else has any legitimate claim to prevent people from signing up for this plan, or to prevent the company from offering it.

  • C-Law

    I can’t believe its finally happening. The downfall of the internet has begun. Why did we have to go and ruin such a nice thing

  • Shawn John

    Sprint has no clue, there’s apps to control what sites you want to access if you really want to exclude sites to save bandwidth, but providing a la cart internet is like saying to someone which grain of sand you prefer to stand on at the beach. Don’t quantify the internet with a number of social sites, that’s just a very, very small portion of what the internet landscapes provides.

  • Anthony L.

    Guess Sprint really doesn’t want to stay in business, do they?

  • Chris Stuart

    So I am guessing you get no data on this plan except for on the social media sites and music streaming? I don’t think I have an issue with this. It would be interesting if they sold this plan with a forked version of android that only had certain apps available. Would be great for the very young, old, and general tech illiterate.

    I also don’t think I would have an issue if you could pay $X/month to have certain sites/apps not count against my data. So long as one site is not prioritized (speed wise) over another or certain sites count as “double data”.

  • jak_341

    Meh. I see nothing wrong with this. The free market will decide if this is a good idea or not.

  • Daniel Gill

    So, it is a bad thing that people that only use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Pinterest should be permitted to pay only $12 per month instead of the current $30. Yeah, this article is propaganda.

    • j

      People who really only want limited internet access on their smartphone can certainly save money. The problem is the slope is very slippery, and VM just jumped off the edge. From here, we will only see more restrictions, and we will see those restrictions start to creep up the plans until you and I are affected. Unlimited internet access plans are mostly a thing of the past. Neutral internet access plans are next to go. See the big picture.

      • jak_341

        The companies own the infrastructure. They should decide how data is transmitted.

        • j

          Data source and destination should be irrelevant. Momentary bandwidth, or overall data usage is one thing, but discriminating against data source or destination is a very bad precedent. This should be extremely obvious. Next up, you’ll have to pay for certain websites. Sorry, Droid-Life.com access is an additional $5/month bro.

          • jak_341

            That is the company’s choice. We have the choice to pay of frequent another site.

      • Daniel Gill

        The big picture, straight from the entire website that was setup to support Net Neutrality (http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now ), is that it is needed because “Chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan would enable Internet service providers to charge extra fees to content companies like Google and Netflix for preferential treatment.” This isn’t about Net Neutrality, but what do you really expect from a college sophomore (that’s about the author, in case you were wondering). http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kyle-wiggers/57/612/9b1

        Terms are being completely conflated and this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality whatsoever.

        • j

          Who cares what it’s labeled. The precedence of paying for a la crate internet is what we don’t like.

          • Aaron C

            Meanwhile, on cable TV, this is what we’ve been screaming for fer ages — the ability to pay only for what channels/stations we want to watch. Unless you’re a cord-cutter, you’re probably watching 10% of the channels you pay for via cable/satellite.

          • Daniel Gill

            So you will push for legislation for something completely unrelated? That doesn’t make sense and that is why it does matter what it is called.

    • Kyle Wiggers

      The point is, there are far better approaches than this to cheaper data plans. Why not lessen then expense of a few capped plans for prepaid customers? Why not subsidize costs in a way that doesn’t impose access restrictions, perhaps through advertising? Virgin Mobile’s approach is destructive, but it doesn’t have to be. That’s what’s so frustrating.

      • Deuce Sevenoff

        The point is, you made an issue out of nothing, and now that you’ve been called out on it, you’re trying to keep the fires raging by claiming the “slippery slope” argument. The problem with this is your hyperbole will mute any future arguments where there should be outrage–crying wolf and all that. Man-up and admit that you went half-cocked on this one.

  • Justin Kos
  • ronandersonjr

    Wow.

  • KingofPing

    *laughing*’

    Net neutrality….

    Yeah. Let’s dilute the hell out of that phrase so absolutely no-one knows what it means at all anymore. Good idea, guys! Thanks for sharing!

    (You can think this plan is stupid as heck – which it is – but it has dick to do with Net Neutrality as the carriers/service providers do not run Facebook, twitter or the music streaming services offered; nor are the services being offered paying the carriers/providers for the “privilege” of sole-access..)

    You just did more to destroy Net Neutrality than you claim Virgin Mobile did.

    • Kyle Wiggers

      Net neutrality: The principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

      • KingofPing

        ffs…

        And the above post from Kyle is the result.

        Net Neutrality is the principle that all data should be treated equally regardless of content, source, user, platform or application.

        It does *not* mean a service providing access to another service by default *must* provide access to *all* services. It doesn’t even remotely begin to imply such a thing. By your logic and definition, every network on the planet is breaking Net Neutrality “rules”.

      • velocipedes

        It’s not a “principle.” It’s a desire. And it’s a desire based on the idea that everyone else should subsidize your expenses.

        • n00tch

          Oh, you mean like the subsidies that multiple state governments have paid to the telcos and cable companies because of the promise of better infrastructure or access, while not delivering on their promises? Or the subsidies we pay these companies on a federal level? Try again.

          Nothing is wrong with the current ideal of net neutrality. It is the way our access providers have operated since their inception. With the telcos and cable companies having carved up the country into little monopolies, it’s not hard to see that the opposition to net neutrality is nothing more than trying to wring blood from the proverbial stone. If I or many people in the same situation had an alternative to our local cable company present, this might be different. But the deregulation of the cable companies has quashed that.

          That being said, the regular data plan from Sprint operates with a cap that does not discriminate or favor any service (to my knowledge). This add-on package does “favor” traffic to certain websites, but it doesn’t impact the original plan itself, so I’m a bit divided on it.

          • velocipedes

            Oh, you mean like the subsidies that multiple state governments have paid to the telcos and cable companies because of the promise of better infrastructure or access, while not delivering on their promises? Or the subsidies we pay these companies on a federal level? Try again.

            I’m not sure what you’re asking me to “try again.” I’m in agreement with you here. It is not the government’s place to subsidize monopolist interests. The government gave these companies a monopoly on their markets under the fallacious economic theory of “natural monopoly” (invented by these very monopolists). These monopolists have exclusive pricing power, so to prevent them from abusing pricing power, the government has instituted price controls. Then these monopolists whine and complain about the cost of doing business, so government agrees to rate hikes.

            This problem doesn’t exist in unregulated markets. It’s a problem entirely manufactured by government intervention.

            Net neutrality is another problem that is entirely manufactured. Net neutrality is not the real issue. The real issue is the monopolist service provider market created by local, state, and federal governments. If we could get as many people ranting about that as there are ranting about the supposed problem of “net neutrality,” we’d actually make some progress. Fix the monopolist issue, and the “net neutrality” issue disappears.

          • n00tch

            The try again was in response to your “calling out” of Kyle on subsidies. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose, especially when you realize how much the tax payer funds businesses with little to nothing in return.

            However, I find your analysis of the situation intriguing. I can easily see where the regulatory practices of the government do foster these situations. That being said, we’re talking about a government entity that is headed by a former lobbyist for the cable companies. Clearly, we have a government official in a place of great power, who has a serious conflict of interest if we consider his past career and future career prospects.

            I can see the arguments for an unregulated market, I just don’t necessarily agree with them. We’ve been down that road before. I’m sure you’ve heard of “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair? The main functions of corporations are to create a profit for the share holders, to externalize costs, and to provide limited liability for the owners. In essence, corporations as an institution are meant to give themselves every efficiency and advantage that they can. Hence the penetration of big business into our government via lobbyists and appointments to positions that are not able to be held accountable by the body politic.

            Instead of complete deregulation, I would be much more in favor of having positions like these be able to be publicly recalled. Accountability, as it were, would clean up a lot of this without completely gutting consumer protections.

            I’d like to end by throwing one more wrench into this. A lot of this comes down municipalities selling off the rights-of-way to possible development, and seeing them as revenue streams. It forces one to be on the level of Comcast, AT&T, or another corporate entity to have the ability to even enter the playing field with what some of them are asking for price or requirements.

          • velocipedes

            You misunderstood my very first post. I quite plainly called him out on his use of the word “principle.” I don’t favor subsidies at all, in any form.

            You point out the problem yourself: the FCC is headed by a former cable lobbyist. Government regulation is ineffective and self-defeating if the ones supposedly being controlled are doing the controlling. The game is then no longer “reigning in” the out-of-control corporate monopolists. The game then becomes maintaining exclusive pricing power through government-backed monopolies. If you avoid creating this arbitrary position of power in the first place, the monopolists have no method of backing their monopolies with government force. They are then subject to natural competition in the market (which they hate).

            I’m sure you’ve heard of the Progressive movement and its focus on Industrial Policy, the policy of favoring corporate expansion over protecting the rights of individuals? Probably not. There is a lot of myth espoused by Progressives, including that argument that “we’ve tried that before and it didn’t work” in reference to free markets. The truth is they DID work…until the progressives made them unfree. Only after the Progressives started implementing price controls, backing corporate monopolists, and blocking legal recourse for individuals harmed by corporations did the so-called “market failures” materialize that supposedly necessitated further government intervention.

            The corporation is a product of the state, after all. It is the state that charters corporations into existence. The state, upon seeing the destructive influence of corporations, then proposes rules to contain this destruction. But this is a self-defeating cycle of intervention that results in a concentration of wealth and power.

            So it would seem that we come to a more fundamental problem than corporate monopolists – the very idea of incorporation. There is an entire system of power that exists purely for the benefit of an elitist few. They have invented grand theories and justifications to protect their power structure, and most people believe it, unfortunately. Undoing it is going to take much more work that simply whining about “net neutrality.”

          • n00tch

            You believe that the corporations, who have behaved badly without any kind of oversight, who have enmeshed themselves into our system of government to subvert it, are going to magically become “good citizens”, once regulation goes entirely out the window? That was the whole point of including the bit about Upton Sinclair… the meat packing industry was rife with unsanitary conditions, deadly accidents, and a host of other vileness before these companies were taken to task and regulated. I’m also not going to tell you that just because something hasn’t worked once, that it won’t work the second time. By that same token, human nature hasn’t changed a lot since we’ve been recording history. The first time? Shame on you. The second time? Shame on me.

            I’ll concede that the act of incorporation needs to go away, along with the part of the fourteenth amendment granting personhood to said entities. I have a hard time believing that taking away the controls that these corporations have subverted for their own use will encourage the people who direct them to become humane, empathetic, or want to deliver a better product to the consumer.

            Personally, I am for the most limited and efficient government possible. What the definition of that is, will vary from individual to individual. I believe that consumer protections do need to be a part of that, especially when you consider how much power the wealthy wield, and how badly those who have been wealthy and in business have used that power.

            Also, I believe you are very confused when it comes to progressive politics versus neo-liberal politics.

          • velocipedes

            You believe that the corporations, who have behaved badly without any kind of oversight, who have enmeshed themselves into our system of government to subvert it, are going to magically become “good citizens”, once regulation goes entirely out the window?

            I don’t believe corporations should exist at all, since they artificially expose external parties to risks and costs that those external parties didn’t agree to assume.

            But I also believe that competition is the best regulator, and that people in the market have more information about their own needs desires and the needs and desires of others on which to base decisions than do ivory-tower bureaucrats operating from a distant perspective. The protection of property rights is the only tool needed to ensure competition and consumer protection, and that takes place through the courts. Legislators should be concerned with strengthening protections for property rights, not increasing their own control of the market and power over peoples decision-making.

            Upton Sinclair’s book was hyperbolic fiction. “I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth.” -Theodore Roosevelt on Upton Sinclair’s book. That was Roosevelt’s position before he read the book, after which he recognized a golden opportunity to grab even more federal influence in the market without any public resistance. Then he became a complete supporter.

            I have a hard time believing that taking away the controls that these corporations have subverted for their own use will encourage the people who direct them to become humane, empathetic, or want to deliver a better product to the consumer.

            In the same sentence, you both recognize that these corporations have subverted regulations for their own benefit, and yet you also state you have a hard time believing how removing these regulations will cause them to act in better faith. That seems contradictory, at minimum.

            The market forces companies to offer better quality at better value. Companies that don’t follow that rule are run out of business through a lack of demand for their product and a lack of investor resources. Only under a centrally planned and regulated system are bad companies kept afloat by cronies in both industry and government.

            Personally, I am for the most limited and efficient government possible.

            If that is indeed the case, then you would do well to recognize how inefficient government intervention in the economy is. It distorts prices, investment decisions, capital and resource allocation, and the entire supply/demand mechanism. Some politicians simply ignore this fact. Others realize it, and yet justify it as “consumer protection.” In reality, consumers suffer because they are forced to bear the cost of this wasteful intervention. It retards economic progress, and leads to a massive discrepancies in both economic and monetary wealth.

            Neo-liberals are simply Progressives, with a few minor differences. They, as well as most Republicans, support government intervention in the economy because it benefits them politically, not because they’re the least bit interested in protecting consumers from corporate malfeasance. They don’t care about you, they care about the corporate interests that grease their palms.

      • krystal boren

        Thats just it. They’re not blocking any websites or apps. you can look at anything on the internet and use any app. when you do that,you’re gonna use your data plan-whether you got unlimited data or not(thats what i meant by this has nothing to do w/net neutrality) The add-ons are so that you dont use your data plan for that. But if you wanna spend all your data up on facebook, you can do that too. Now I’m done. This is crazy!! And I’m getting off of here

  • BillySuede

    this is how it starts…

  • Daistaar

    Just to play devil’s advocate, might this be an interesting way to provide a child a social medial-less device; I mean outside of a dumbphone? Has anyone ever seen parental controls on a smartphone?

    • Shawn John

      Yeah it’s called taking the phone away from them. That’s parental control feature #1. and #2 there’s probably an APP for that.

      • OhHai

        What? You expect parents to parent their children?

        You can’t even expect them to remember they have kids in the car when they get out to go to work.

        So much apologists for bad parenting, even articles about leaving something you won’t forget in the backseat with your baby so you will go back there to get it and notice your child. What? Are you saying a phone is less forgettable than a baby? What have we become?

        • Daistaar

          While I get where you guys are going, how about we take a less ominous approach. Jane Doe has an 8 year old son she gives a phone to so she can reach him and vice versa. Jane doesn’t want her son being exposed to porn and the dangers of the internet or apps. This article made me wonder why there are no parental settings on devices. We have kids modes to protect our content but why is there no parental option to protect them?

          • Aaron C

            FWIW, I agree with you. People love to get all hot and bothered on the internets with no idea whether or not we’re actually good parents. There is nothing wrong with giving parents options. How they use them is up to them. But they’re nice to have.

            My son has a NABI (Android tablet). It has a “Nabi Mode” which is basically a separate “child” mode. You only add the apps you want to that interface. Then you have a parental unlock if you want to customize those kid screens. It works very well.

            We don’t use it as a babysitter. Our 6-year-old earns time on it. 15 minutes here and there. He also loves to take pictures and video on it.

          • OhHai

            He is going to be exposed to all that eventually. It is better to educate them than to restrict them. A movie being rated R or game being rated M is seen/played by 10 year olds all the time, if parenting was really about ‘parenting’ and not herding children like livestock until they are old enough to leave then you could easily teach them instead of force them.

            “Timmy you can’t do that” “Why” “Because I said so and added a lock on your phone” isn’t a good answer to humans (especially children who seem to love pushing against authority) . It is better to sit them down and help them understand what bad things exist/ what good things exist, but it seems like people who had the time to make babies don’t have the time to parent them anymore.

          • John

            There are parental controls on almost every phone on the market today.

          • Daistaar

            Interesting that you say that because I just checked on My S4, which is one of the most popular phones in the world and it doesn’t have a single thing. I know iOS has some pretty good restriction settings, but I’ve yet to see a single Android device come with anything of the sort.

      • Justin W

        I think giving a child a phone is just an excuse for the parent to not actually spend time with the child. It’s like a babysitter, except always there. Like a TV, except mobile.

        • OhHai

          “Dad look at what I did today at school”
          “Shut it Timmy, here go play angry flappy candy or whatever”

          • HarvesterX

            Flappy Tits : Breasts of Doom

        • Daistaar

          I think if and when you have children, you’ll change your perspective. Also, that’s not the question or direction my question was going. My question was more about wondering on why there haven’t been parental options on mobile devices to safeguard our children from the dangers of the internet. The thought of Sprint providing devices that had no access to sites like Facebook was an interesting idea and may actually be something that could (for the worse in general) be embraced by parents looking for a solution to have some content control over their child’s mobile device whether it’s a phone or a tablet.

        • Shawn John

          Yeah a phone can be used to communicate with kids walking home from school, at a friends house, at a family residence etc. It’s not just for entertainment purposes. I like the idea of being able to “Ping” my kids whenever neccessary. Although I’m glad I didn’t have one as a kid, the places I went, I would not want my parents knowing how far away from home I roamed by pulling my location up on a map.

      • Daistaar

        LOL That was actually pretty obvious and funny and I have no idea why it didn’t occur to me lol. I guess it’s not an issue for me yet as my little guy is only 3 months but I guess I’ll have to invest in an app someday in the far far future.

  • You can’t charge for everything!

    • Daistaar

      “Like hell we can’t!”

      -D. Draper

      • Suicide_Note

        lolololol

  • Mudd

    These companies are getting it all backward. I want a la cart tv stations, not a la cart internet.

    • Justin Kos

      Spot on

    • velocipedes

      So go with a company that sells the product you want. Simple.

      • MJ

        Were you born a tool or did you become one with a lot of hard work? ..or maybe just a troll?

        • OhHai

          Maybe he is a paid apologist.

        • velocipedes

          The truth offends you? Why are you so hateful?

          • Gorgina

            Ah, the mark of someone not interested in discourse…

          • velocipedes

            Name-calling? You’re correct, mon frere. Calling people “tools” and “trolls” for having a different opinion muddies up the discourse.

        • MJ

          Hey that’s my name.

        • fuzzylumpkins

          so..don’t buy the product you want? that doesn’t make sense.

      • Ummm….

        Which company was it that sells a la cart TV channels again? Oh, I remember – none of them.

        • velocipedes

          Actually, most of them do. It’s just channels you’re not interested in. Selling channels a la carte costs significantly more than bundling them together, which is why most cable companies sell packages of channels. You should really crack open an economics book.

          • ^ I can economic ^

            >You should only use companies that sell the services you want.
            >No companies sell the services you want.
            Remind me again how this is helpful?

          • velocipedes

            If you have a market demand that isn’t being met, there are two likely reasons:

            1) your demand is too niche, and there isn’t enough market-wide demand to justify the capital cost of meeting it.

            and/or

            2) sufficient demand exists to justify capital costs in meeting that demand, but the barriers to entering the market are artificially high.

            The solution is to either wait until demand increases to justify the capital costs in meeting it, and/or push for reducing the artificial barriers to market entry.

          • When the barriers to entering the market are artificially high, this is almost always because government is making it so, in response to statists who want government to make consumers decisions for them.

          • velocipedes

            A very accurate observation.

    • Pierito

      Amen to that

    • Patrick Kennedy

      According to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest are among the top most used websites, and realistically much higher in mobile use. It’s entirely possible people–especially prepaid users–go through life without using much beyond those four websites. If I were one of those people I’d adore something like this. Get the cheapest data plan (if that) for doing whatever else, and then just sit on Facebook ALL DAY LONG.

      Seems reasonable to me.

  • If this works other carriers may pick up on this and that’s where the problem comes in. I will say $5 extra a month for unlimited streaming that doesn’t count towards your data isn’t bad.

    • RiceCake

      Yes it is bad. You should be allowed to stream whatever you want.

      A few dollars for Facebook access. Then a few more for Netflix. Then Verizon will charge 10 a month for google maps because they won’t kill Navigator. Haha

      • velocipedes

        You “should be allowed?” Based on what principle?

        • Daistaar

          Based on you’re paying for that data. How you use it is your business, as long as it’s paid for.

          • velocipedes

            You’re only paying for what the company agrees to sell you. If you agree to buy what the company is selling, and the company is selling something like streaming separately, then that’s what you’re paying for. If the company agrees to sell you service at a flat rate, ONLY then does your claim hold.

          • Daistaar

            If I as a consumer am buying 4gbs of data a month, it does not matter if that data comes from usage of facebook, streaming audio, netflix or panda porn. The traffic is now being scrutinized when it was amount of data that was what was sold. Imagine if you were told you have unlimited voice minutes but any conversations about the economy would cost you extra. You’d be livid. Well, maybe not you, but most consumers would be.

          • velocipedes

            Check your contract. That’s where the terms are defined. What you want the terms to say and what they actually say might be different. Regardless, you voluntarily agreed to the contract.

            What Sprint is offering is a NEW plan. It does not affect existing plans.

        • OhHai

          So is there anything else in this world that you buy and are told how you can use it?

          Does Publix/Kroger/WholeFoods sell you an avocado for $1 if you are putting it in a taco salad vs $2 if you are putting it on eggs?

          Data has a price, whatever the market determines is acceptable, and then it is purchased. It’s value should not be dictated on how that data is used. It is simply all 1s and 0s.

          • velocipedes

            Bad comparisons. A better comparison would be Publix or Kroger running a deal where you can buy an avocado at $1, or you can get the avocado for 50c if you buy it with a taco salad kit. Claiming that all avocados should only be 50c simply because the deal exists is a bad claim.

            The market will sort out what customers demand and what providers supply. Nobody is being harmed by the fact that Sprint has introduced a new plan. Sprint is not taking anything from you.

          • OhHai

            Nope, that’s bundling. Nice try though.
            This is simply collusion with the social networks.

          • velocipedes

            Actually, it’s not bundling. Bundling is what they already sell.

            Sprint has already clearly stated that there is no agreement between them and the social networks they’re selling access to.

  • Ralph Bretz

    I can’t believe I was considering to go to Sprint this fall to get away from Verizon.
    I guess it’s onto to Cricket or Straight Talk.
    Anyone use Straight Talk?

    • Justin Kos

      Yes I do, I’ve used a nexus 4 and 5 and note 3 with the at&t Sim card. Love it

      • Ralph Bretz

        Straight Talk uses AT&T where I live. The area is completely covered in LTE now by AT&T.

        How are data speeds? Are they restricted like Cricket Wireless? On Cricket the fastest you can have on LTE is 8mbps.

        • Justin Kos

          The LTE is great everything I do that needs a faster speed (mostly Google music) works perfect.. Just did a speed test and its 15mbps down 2 up

          • Ralph Bretz

            Thank you very much for the info.

          • n00tch

            I use Straight Talk on my Nexus 5 as well. It’s been pretty good, but I have heard repeatedly that they will throttle you if you stream video. I don’t stream video on my phone, so YMMV.

          • Ralph Bretz

            I’d save close to $750 a year on Straight Talk. I’ll loose Unlimited but since VZW will throttle I’ll loose it anyhow.
            Thanks to @n00tch:disqus and @justinkos:disqus

  • Greg

    How much to have unlimited acess to Google+ lol

  • Tyler

    It’s official, the “cablization” of the internet has begun.

    • velocipedes

      The cabal are the internet service providers, and it began a long time ago. This is why “net neutrality” is a red herring. More competition in the service provider industry would ensure that customers get what they want, but service providers have conspired with bureaucrats to limit new competition. That’s why it takes a company with the size and resources of Google just to offer new service in a single city (with many of the bureaucratic costs waived as a concession). It is prohibitively expensive, by design.

  • Chris

    Very misleading head line. This has nothing to do with the actual sprint service. This is only limited to Virgin mobile which operates independently of sprint.

    • trixnkix637

      The point of the article is that this could spread into Sprint’s actual service. Limited to Virgin for now, sure… But for how long?

  • Shadowstare

    If I was a Sprint Customer or Virgin mobile, i’d leave. Period.

  • Disqus_n00b

    The Truth about Net Neutrality – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4&list=PLMNj_r5bccUyulYsatrzNGIvasrOeBy_Y

    If people only want certain apps, why not give them option to pay less? If no one wants this $12 option, it will burn out on its own.

    • Justin W

      That is a lot of videos

  • LosttsoL

    As if people needed one more reason to dislike Sprint. What a joke.

  • OneForTheGoodDays

    Is their President’s name really Dow Draper? I had a laugh… then a cry.

    • Bane

      It’s actually pronounced “Dow D. Raper”.

      • More like Dow D. Butt Raper because that’s what he’s attempting to do to his customer base.

  • Bane

    People actually use Sprint? I guess if you want to wait for 10 minutes for your Facebook feed to load, you’re probably not going to have a problem with being limited to how much you can view it.

    • shooter50

      the question is why would anyone use Sprint. What do they have to offer

      • Bane

        The slowest 3G speeds around. Duh! Who wouldn’t want that?

        • cizzlen

          Sprint now has my permission to die

          • n00tch

            Sprint’s data is the worst. There is no excuse for it to be so slow in this day and age.

  • trixnkix637

    This is why the TMo/Sprint buyout scares the crap out of me. Seems like every Sprint exec has their head up their arse.

  • Blue Sun

    They’ll never get my business. Not that I would ever use a CDMA network again anyway…

    • Bryan Mills

      CDMA blows. Can’t use international phones, locked down, Verizon bloatware. Fukittttt

      • Blue Sun

        I’ve gotten burned several times by the “Yes, your phone is set to work in that country”, only to find out at arrival, my device is unable to connect (basically a Wi-Fi only deivce). I’ve never had that issue with a GSM device.

        • Patrick Kennedy

          International is a great reason not to use CDMA, but I for one enjoy not having dropped calls. At least with Verizon, I can’t speak to Sprint’s efficacy

        • Tom Consolazio

          A couple of years ago this was true… now I think everything in Verizon’s lineup has both GSM and CDMA antennas. D I’ve never had issues with my S4 or S5 while traveling in GSM countries. I took a quick peak on the Verizon website at some of their free phones, and even those have GSM support as well.

      • MJ

        I’ve had a couple Verizon phones that worked internationally.

        • PoisonApple31

          He’s saying you can’t use international phones on Verizon’s network.

          • MJ

            Ya I see that now. I read his post then Blue Sun’s reply and I guess I combined them in my head thinking they were both saying the same thing. I should have replied to Blue Sun.

      • Charles Walker

        Dunno if it’s CDMA or Sprint, but it’s not possible to send a multi-text message without having it split every 150 chars either. Between T-mo and Verizon, SMS always come as a single text which is really, really nice.

        • Tom Consolazio

          SMS is limited to 160 characters by design. Most newer phones automatically flip to MMS after you go over 160 characters. MMS has no theoretical length limit. If this is happening to you, it’s the phone, not the carrier or network.

          • a_dalal

            That’s not true either. Most new phone group multi-text SMS (upto 3 SMS, I think), and the receiving handset sees the multi-text message as one message. And I believe there are carrier imposed MMS limits as well.

          • Charles Walker

            I disagree… when I was on Sprint and text my GF on Verizon, messages were received on her end as split up. When I switched to T-Mobile, she received them properly as one. The messages must be getting converted to MMS, but I’m wondering if different carriers handle it differently.

      • Tom Consolazio

        Don’t most of Verizon’s phones have both CDMA and GSM now? I’ve never had issues with my S4 or S5 while traveling in GSM countries. A quick peak on the Verizon website at some of their free phones, and even those have GSM as well.

    • Justin W

      My thought is the only reason they’re charging only $5 for unlimited music streaming is because you’re on a network that can’t inherently support a steady decent stream for music. Then again, the entire thing is bull anyway.

  • Jaxon Wright

    -_-

  • yankeesusa

    I hope they go bankrupt!

    • shooter50

      Agree 1000% and no pity for their miserable condescending customer service people who’s chief goal is to get you off the line whether your problem is solved or not.

  • gambit07

    I hope that absolutely 0 customers sign up for this just to show all carrier’s how terrible an idea this is.

  • Thaddeus Brown

    Won’t fly soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many sanctions will be thrown at them.

    • Suicide_Note

      Maybe, but in the meantime they’re still going to try hard to make it work.

  • Jeremy Martin

    yea they have the network to dictate that. /end sarcasm Sprint…you are not Verizon.

  • You’ve got to be kidding me…

    When people sign up for this, it will reinforce the fake view that consumers want tiered content packages for internet services.

    This will only help destroy net neutrality…

    • OhHai

      Born too late to explore the world, born too early to explore the universe, but born just in time to fight for basic liberties…

      Too many people on earth today infected with apathy. All may be lost.

      • It is so unfortunate how apathetic this world has become, at least here in the states…

      • crussell

        This doesn’t affect me so why should I care. Oh hey, did you see that new ‘Merican Idol? Now where did I put my cheetos? Ma did you take may cheetos – nevermind, they were under my fat roll. /sarcasm off

        • This, everything this lol, and when the apathetics find out it does affect them, its too late, and all they do is become a whiny little brat.

          • BillySuede

            THIS.

          • Slug_DC

            And what action are you clearly caring and non-apathetic people taking, exactly? Just curious.

          • Voting, signing petitions, and writing/calling your representatives. In this age of technology, there are so many ways to voice your disapproval against political strongholds but no one seems to care enough to do these things. Imagine the change that could happen if more people consistently used these mediums to contact their representatives and senators. So what ends up happening, is that the large companies lobbying for the things we don’t want, end up convincing more people to show approval than disapproval.

          • fuzzylumpkins

            Or they jump on the bandwagon before it’s even a problem and whine about it becoming a problem despite there being no evidence of it being a problem yet. Net neutrality is a credible theory but the only time it’s been an issue is with Netflix vs. Comcast/Verizon, which has more to do with their monopolies as service providors than net neutrality, and pirating. The entire movement is just an attempt to stop ISPs from blocking pirating (all data should be equal! including illegal data!). T-Mobile’s offering only benefits customers, the other services who aren’t included remain unchanged, ie it doesn’t hurt them.

            Think of it like this: you eat the same 3 meals every day of your favorite foods. Of all foods, you chose those ones. All the sudden, someone gives you an opportunity to eat similar, but not the same food, in unlimited portions. Are you going to switch? Most people would not sacrifice something they greatly enjoy for unlimited portions of something they enjoy less. People who stream through whatever app they already used are going to continue to stream as much as they did without change.

            Net neutrality in a nutshell: If you’re giving us that for free, I also want this for free, and this, until everything is free. But then if it’s expensive because nothing is free, I don’t want to pay that much, so I steal it or work around it.

        • It will when/if other carriers see this as a new window for profit and slowly start to adopt it. So with that being said I’d say this does affect you.

          • OhHai

            Dat reading comprehension.

          • Dat wgaf

          • Plus I never quoted you

          • OhHai

            You replied to crussell before reading his entire comment and now you are being sassy.

            Just stop it.

          • Yea we already got that straightened out. Didn’t know that’s what you were talking about.

          • Natty Bee

            That is inevitable. Just like the tiered data plans AT&T started which eventually hit all carriers

          • crussell

            Not sure if serious…. You did see “/sarcasm off”, right? Unfortunately, I was stating the feelings (lack there of) of the general ‘Merican populous.

          • Oops my bad I really didn’t see that part.

          • Billy

            What an ironic usename you chose. You’re the very opposite of an intellectual.

          • Awww dang you have me all figured out because I made a mistake on the Internet you’re so smart Not!! I love people like you quick to pounce on a mistake and try to make yourself feel better well guess what Billy Bob Thornton I’m still smarter than you on my bad days
            PS: I made my reply all run on sentences without proper punctuation, that should give you something to cream your panties about. I’m so the opposite of Intellectua1. Lol.

          • Billy

            Sorry I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. Now I feel bad that I made you angry/sad. Truly sorry Broseph. Have a good night :-SS

          • It’s actually day time in the US but if you had an actual job besides comment patrolling you’d know that. And make me mad, nope this is all fun and games to me. I love insulting people on the net, I get a kick out of it. My favorite pastime.

      • Justin Kos

        Deep stuff right there..

      • inklenotrump

        Is that a lyric?

        • OhHai

          First part (space and earth) is a common observation, not sure where it originated.

      • John Davids

        I feel like this every single day.

      • spinky

        this is beautiful

      • Freeman4096

        what a brilliant comment.

      • Trevor

        I’m stealing this!

      • Oliver Moore

        Born late enough to not be conscripted in two of the most horrific wars that have happened in human history, born late enough to be treated equally and not be judged on the colour of your skin or what race you are, born just at the right time to explore information with the world wide web which is a privileged that they didn’t have before the world wide web was created, born in a time where vaccination is widely available to almost all people, eradicating some of the most deadly of diseases, born in a time where child mortality rates and life expectancy are at their best, born in an age where space exploration is increasing, where a man made object is going into interstellar space, born at just the right time to be able to travel the world yourself instead of have someone else discovering it, we can go places with ease using cars, planes and boats.If you think just because Sprint is throttling internet speeds, we are having to fight for basic liberties then you are greatly mistaken, we are the lucky ones, there are people who are suffering due to someone else’s decision to fight, they are paying with their lives because of a argument they aren’t involved in. Don’t whine about how unfortunate we are now if you’re whining sitting at your computer, in your house with walls, with the heating on, whilst you are in a safe neighbourhood, not having to worry about where you are going to get your next meal from, whether someone you know will be killed in a bombing in the next day because of a petty war fought by two sides or where you are going to sleep. We are the fortunate ones here yet we still don’t realise how fortunate we are

        • OhHai

          TL;DR

          • Oliver Moore

            TL;DR We’re one of the most fortunate generations in terms of liberties and what we have going for us

          • velocipedes

            /s ?

      • Michael

        Time to volunteer and stand next to these display areas where people buy this stuff and hand the Information on Net Neutrality in layman terms and explain why they should NOT BUY into this plan.

        Kind of like a surgeon’s warning on harmful things to come if you go down this path.

        • OhHai

          I feel like there are enough creative and talented people for net neutrality to make a DIY media company (similar to the cDc but not as much hacking necessary) to flood digital media (and eventually radio/tv) with pro-neutrality propaganda.

          If the truth isn’t going to work maybe we need to use the same scare tactics governments and corporations use? Exaggerate where you have to, maybe the end will justify the means?

    • FourString

      This plan is really fking awful compared to T-Mobile’s 5Gb 4G LTE + Unlimited Texting for $30/mo (with unlimited Spotify streaming). Like honestly, what the actual fk?

      • rmjb

        You do realise that the Sprint plan and the T-Mobile plan you stated are basically the same thing.
        You have a capped mobile data plan plus UNLIMITED access to a particular online service that does not count against your cap. Except in T-Mobile’s plan they don’t let me choose if I want that option, they just bundled it into the price of the plan.

    • Matt Peterson

      Dude, some people only need specific things. It’s kind of like cable or dish. Why pay for hundreds of channels you never watch?

      You can still get full internet on Virgin. It’s not taking anything away – it’s just saving customers money. I care about Net Neutrality more than most, which is why I suggest you focus your energy on places where the crimes against neutrality are actually taking place.

      Keep an eye on it, but for now, there’s nothing wrong here.

      • Dude, some people might want more than just specific things. Its better to pay for more than you use, so that when you do want that one other channel (new tv show, movie, etc..?) you normally don’t watch, you have it, and don’t have to order it and then have to pay for it. If they had to pay for that channel just to watch that one show, it would kill the ratings of that show because people would not be as willing to pay more for one channel for one season, I know I wouldn’t, I’d rather miss out on this “cool new show” than have to fork over extra money to get the channel for one season.

        While it may be saving customers money, it really is going to reinforce the fact that carriers can charge us for content package tiers because people will sign up for it, and not only will they sign up for it, but they’ll upgrade and pay more when they realize how restricted they are and that they lust for more than what they are paying for and realize how stupid it is to just pay for a sliver of internet service. It all starts with baby steps, and these here are the baby steps, and before you know it, they’re running the race and beating the hell out of use consumers. We have got to stop letting corporations and ISPs tell us what we consumers want. Let me do my own decision making, I know what I want, and this ain’t it.

        There is so much wrong here, and you my friend, are blind to it. Please, please, please open you eyes and take on the perspective of every party involved in this kind of decision making. This type of thing, what Spring is doing with this and what T-Mobile is doing with the streaming music, is a crime against net neutrality disguised as a “truth” and a way to “help out the consumer.” They’re half-truths, making them lies in the end.

        • Matt Peterson

          I’m not blind to it – it’s just not a problem. It’s how we consume. I can order a Big Mac without fries and a drink if I want. The #1 is still a meal, but if I don’t drink soda or eat french fries, there’s a cheaper option for me.

          It’s the same with airlines. I’m going to travel, but I don’t need to bring a bag. Perfect. No bag – I save money. Did I bring a bag, that option is there too.

          You only use the internet on your phone for facebook? Great. Here’s facebook. Oh, wait, this other person browses a lot? Let’s go over here to the full internet section.

          You see? It’s being sensationalized because it’s a hot topic right now. The full internet is still an option. If everyone uses their phone for more than facebook, this will go away quick.

          T-Mobile is doing the same thing, but no one batted an eye! On T-Mobile, you get free unlimited streaming of music but only on a couple of apps.

          • Anon Cow

            So much wrong here… you can keep your internet built for consumption. Would Facebook have become this popular if Sprint sold a Myspace plan 5 years ago?

          • I understand how we consume, but your analogies are inaccurate and off base. Internet isn’t just something we consume like food, its a continued service that is always available, not a product we have to re-buy once we’ve consumed the first portion.

            And yes, people did question T-Mobile about its music streaming deal and just as many people were upset about the potential net neutrality issues with it.

            I still think you are failing to see the future snowball effects of these baby steps ISPs are taking to segment the internet into packages.

            I’ll think we’ll just have to leave this discussion here, and just agree to disagree.

      • devman

        The analogy to cable is a terrible one. It cable companies pay money to carry specific content, Sprint in its role as an ISP does not. It costs Sprint the same amount to transfer 100Kb of Facebook as it does 100Kb of Google+.